Israeli ground invasion of Gaza-What a day!!

[Whiskeyjack]

AmCon's Steve Zhou just published an article titled "Amid Cease-Fires, a Broken Peace Process":

Following yet another ill-fated push at a settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the latest Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip has been marked by the making and breaking of cease-fires, the latest reportedly starting this morning. The human toll has been devastating—overwhelmingly so for the Palestinians. Over 1,700 Palestinians and 60 Israelis have died (so far) in the 28-day operation, overtaking the death toll of “Operation Cast Lead” (2008-09), which lasted 22 days. The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights has called for yet another inquiry into what it sees as “possible war crimes,” just like it did for “Operation Cast Lead” (2008-09), which produced the Goldstone Report. Israel’s global image is suffering as the Palestinian dead mount.

Whatever the long-term consequences of this latest episode in the most protracted military occupation in modern history, many Israelis may very well come to see Netanyahu’s rejection of the latest peace plan, led by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, as a missed opportunity.

Nahum Barnea, one of Israel’s leading correspondents, spoke to numerous senior U.S. officials who were involved in the latest Kerry-led push. Barnea’s conversations with these officials provide a rather clear picture of what Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas was willing to concede to his Israeli counterparts:

He [Abbas] agreed to a demilitarized state; he agreed to the border outline so 80 percent of settlers would continue living in Israeli territory; he agreed for Israel to keep security sensitive areas (mostly in the Jordan Valley – NB) for five years, and then the United States would take over. He accepted the fact that in the Israeli perception, the Palestinians would never be trustworthy.

He also agreed that the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and agreed that the return of Palestinians to Israel would depend on Israeli willingness. ‘Israel won’t be flooded with refugees,’ he promised.

In other words, Abbas and the P.A. gave away the house. They conceded key settlement blocs, the Jewish parts of East Jerusalem, and the Palestinian right of return. A two-state solution based on U.N. Resolution 242, 338, and 194 would not have included such concessions to Israel.

Still, Netanyahu said no, demanding that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and that Israel maintain “complete control over the territories.” Then, Israel’s Housing and Construction Ministry, headed by Uri Ariel (“an extremist who opposes any agreement with the Palestinians,” according to Barnea), announced the expansion of settlements in East Jerusalem by 700 housing units. The entire Kerry process fell apart, and Abbas began to focus on forming a unity government with Hamas.

This act of national reconciliation, by which Hamas essentially adopted Abbas’ program for dealing with Israel, was what ultimately provoked the latest punishment of Gaza. Hamas provided no repudiation of Mahmoud Abbas’ concessions after moving into reconciliation. Despite its awful charter, Hamas has, according to a 2009 report by the United States Institute of Peace, sent Israel “repeated signals” that it is willing to accept peaceful co-existence in a two-state resolution of the conflict based on international law.

None of this was good enough for the Netanyahu government. Netanyahu’s administration then used the deaths of three Israeli teenagers this past June as a pretext to raid the West Bank, killing five Palestinians and arresting hundreds. This resulted in a barrage of rockets from Hamas about a month after the West Bank raid began, precipitating the current Israeli operation.

Noted U.S. scholar Norman Finkelstein has pointed out in his authoritative account of Operation Cast Lead that, according to Israeli political strategist Avner Yaniv, Israel is reacting violently to what he calls the Palestinians’ “peace offensive.” Yaniv used the phrase in his book Dilemmas of Security (1987) to characterize the Israeli incursion into Lebanon in 1982. According to Yaniv, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) at that time, led by Yasser Arafat, was contemplating a two-state solution with the Israelis. The problem was that nobody in Israel wanted to allow for the creation of a viable Palestinian state. So, in September 1981, Israel made plans to invade Lebanon, where the PLO was based at the time. The war that ensued put a stop to any possibilities for serious negotiations.

As history continues to repeat itself in the 21st century, Israel’s track record of bad timing calls into question its willingness to negotiate in good faith. The Kerry process, insofar as the Barnea piece (among other “leaks”) reveals, already favored the Israeli desire to permanently swallow up crucial parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The occupation and the planned, permanent annexation of Palestinian land both constitute crimes under international law. According to “Article 49” of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Moreover, the Palestinians were essentially leaving the refugees’ right to return (as per U.N.S.C. Resolution 194) up to Israel’s “willingness.” With Abbas and the P.A. making substantial concessions, and Hamas being backed into a corner financially and politically, the Israelis could have accepted the Kerry-brokered deal. It was an offer that clearly favored Israel. Instead, the world witnessed yet another incursion into Gaza.

If Israel is given the chance to permanently annex parts of the West Bank and push the ever-growing Palestinian population into cantons, then it can expect a much more desperate, perhaps violent, Palestinian response. If that moment arrives, then Israelis may very well regret not taking the Kerry deal when it was on the table. It won’t just have to deal with rudimentary Hamas rockets then, but also with the roughly two million Palestinians currently living in the West Bank who will be forced into an even more desperate situation.

So why didn’t Netanyahu and the Israelis simply say “yes” to such a complimentary deal? The answer, according to the American negotiators, can be found in Israel’s desire to expand settlements. Israel approved plans for nearly 14,000 new settler homes during the nine months it was involved in peace talks with the Palestinians. The entire military occupation, including all settlements, covers about 40 percent of the West Bank. Evidently, Israel’s broader ambition includes the permanent seizure of the land that it currently occupies.

Once Israel implements even more “facts on the ground,” it may very well go back to the negotiating table, and, along with a weak Palestinian Authority, accept a U.S.-brokered deal that includes all the original concessions. At that point, any Palestinian movement for self-determination will be hampered by the Palestinian Authority’s acceptance of a deal that clearly overlooks it.

 

[BobbyMac]

That's awfully similar to the justification al-Qaeda gave for 9/11: American civilians, by electing imperialist politicians, were morally complicit in the actions of their government, and therefore were legitimate targets.



See the last line of #11 above.

You are exactly right... and in some regards, it is even true.

But the comparison ends when it's a non-sovereign / non-governmental group targeting civilians only... vs. a sovereign state targeting opposition fighters and large number of civilians become collateral damage. You have to see the moral and ethical difference.


Whiskey, you make some good arguments... well thought out and written but to even lean 1% ethically towards either side is fruitless. I've been at this since high school and devoted my academic life to this topic and the Soviets. The Soviets always had an answer, there is no answer for these people except small give and takes to keep large scale military action at a minimum.

As I said before, I'm all for a Palestinian state to be carved out of the area between Gaza and a portion of the West Bank... something the size of Rhode Island and Connecticut. Good luck with it though.

 

[IrishLax]

I vet my sources pretty carefully, and not a single one of them agrees with that assessment. Think about it. Israel has all the power here. If they really wanted to make a deal, it would happen. But there's always something--most recently, radical Zionist settlers building in Palestinian territory-- that conveniently sabotages negotiations.

From 2010 through semi-recently Israel had offered up 90%+ of West Bank. This isn't opinion or something obscure... this is widely reported fact. Palestinians wanted nothing to do with the deal.

Who here is defending Hamas? Their hands are as dirty as anyone. But the massive power imbalance between Israel and the Palestinians is crucially important to any moral assessment of the conflict, and Israeli apologists are constantly trying to dismiss that aspect of the debate. All of my posts have been about Israel and the (total lack of) proportionality in its response.

You get it, lots of others don't. There are people who act like Hamas is a group lead by Ghandi when in reality they are uncompromising religious ideologues that have no qualms with violence.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

But the comparison ends when it's a non-sovereign / non-governmental group targeting civilians only... vs. a sovereign state targeting opposition fighters and large number of civilians become collateral damage. You have to see the moral and ethical difference.

I do see the difference. But the massive power imbalance in favor of the Israelis imposes a substantial moral burden on them that the Palestinians don't share. It doesn't have to be like this.

From 2010 through semi-recently Israel had offered up 90%+ of West Bank. This isn't opinion or something obscure... this is widely reported fact. Palestinians wanted nothing to do with the deal.

See the AmCon article above. There have been a lot of leaks from diplomats deeply involved in the peace process, and almost every one has confirmed that the Palestinians have been willing to deal for many years now, and that Israel keeps sabotaging the negotiations. Thus my criticism of their actions.

 

[Wild Bill]

Slate's William Saletan just published an article titled

1. Your enemy refuses to protect its people. Normally, if you invade a country and pound the daylights out of it, you can expect its government to seek, or at least accept, a cease-fire to stop the bleeding. Not here. Hamas has refused to endorse or honor a simple cease-fire despite the ridiculous imbalance of casualties.

Israel argues, correctly, that Hamas doesn’t care about Gazan civilians. Hamas also seems fragmented, unable to make decisions. Arab governments aren’t stepping in, either—they seem to hate Hamas more than they love Gazans. But the absence of competent advocacy for Gazans isn’t a reason to keep shooting. It’s a reason to stop. When your enemy shows no mercy for its own people, that responsibility falls to you.

At what expense? Is Israel obligated to put their own soldiers at greater risk to decrease Palestinian civilian deaths? Israel isn't going to stop until they shut down the tunnel system. Striking from a closer proximity is, IMO, the only way to decrease civilian deaths and close the tunnels. Doing so would put their own soldiers at greater risk. It's an unreasonable expectation/request.

Sooner or later, the people on the Arab street have to take control of their destiny and quit letting Theofascists hijack their way of life. If you let the minority swing the sword in your name, you are culpable and responsible for their actions. The tyranny that Israel imposes on the Palestinian masses is brought upon them by the tyranny the Arab oligarch's impose on their own people in the first place. Hamas doesn't want a deal, it loses it's reason for existence. The struggle is what's important... not the solution.

Is it a minority? I don't have my finger on the pulse of Palestine but it appears Hamas enjoys majority support from the people.

 

[BobbyMac]

Is it a minority? I don't have my finger on the pulse of Palestine but it appears Hamas enjoys majority support from the people.

That's a good point Irish19, thank you... when I was writing that I was thinking more about the problem with Islam as a whole. It would be my opinion that the majority of Palestinians back Hamas or at least grant them a blank check to cash as they see fit.

 

[IrishLax]

See the AmCon article above. There have been a lot of leaks from diplomats deeply involved in the peace process, and almost every one has confirmed that the Palestinians have been willing to deal for many years now, and that Israel keeps sabotaging the negotiations. Thus my criticism of their actions.

I see a party with all the power and leverage not wanting to concede points they shouldn't...

Is asking them to recognize Israel as a Jewish state asking that much? No. But it goes against what their religious ideologues can accept.

You call it "sabotaging the peace process"... I say when you're the party in power and you put a deal on the table and the other party tries to "negotiate" THAT'S sabotaging the peace process. If you're the Palestinians you take the deal or you don't. They didn't. That's on them.

It'd be like someone negotiating with an ant and saying they'll let the ant live and even have an ant hill in the back yard, but the ant says "yeah well let's talk about this... I'm not going to recognize the house as a "human" territory, and..." The ant has no leverage. The ant, right or wrong, can get stomped by the boot. Maybe the ant has the best claim because they were on the property first before the house was built... but that doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of negotiations.

 

[BobbyMac]

I do see the difference. But the massive power imbalance in favor of the Israelis imposes a substantial moral burden on them that the Palestinians don't share. It doesn't have to be like this.

.

Spoken like a true American who's military possess weapons that were designed to minimize unwanted civilian casualties. You know, we are the only society to ever really pull this off in actual combat so be careful judging others and how they use force in military operations. This technology is like giving a wheel to cavemen whom have never used it. There is a learning curve.

But I agree, when you can, use restraint and be judicious in your application of force. I just have a hard time judging a people (cultural nation) that have lived through what they have for the past 3000 years. Wars, Diaspora and Holocaust. Their collective conscience is filled with angst, fear and... revenge. I admire their perseverance and willingness to survive. Doesn't mean I think we should bankroll their operations, they have pleeeeenty of money to do that on their own.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I see a party with all the power and leverage not wanting to concede points they shouldn't...

Is asking them to recognize Israel as a Jewish state asking that much? No. But it goes against what their religious ideologues can accept.

You call it "sabotaging the peace process"... I say when you're the party in power and you put a deal on the table and the other party tries to "negotiate" THAT'S sabotaging the peace process. If you're the Palestinians you take the deal or you don't. They didn't. That's on them.

It'd be like someone negotiating with an ant and saying they'll let the ant live and even have an ant hill in the back yard, but the ant says "yeah well let's talk about this... I'm not going to recognize the house as a "human" territory, and..." The ant has no leverage. The ant, right or wrong, can get stomped by the boot. Maybe the ant has the best claim because they were on the property first before the house was built... but that doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of negotiations.

That's a defensible position, but it means that the US-brokered peace process has been a sham for some time now. When it first started ~40 years ago, there was much more parity between the parties. The PLO did actually pose an existential threat to Israel. Now? Not even close.

So Israel wants the West Bank and Gaza. Great. Take it, and relocate the Palestinians so they don't have to live under enemy occupation, and Israel can maintain the security of its territory without killing women and children. The status quo is indefensible.

Spoken like a true American who's military possess weapons that were designed to minimize unwanted civilian casualties. You know, we are the only society to ever really pull this off in actual combat so be careful judging others and how they use force in military operations. This technology is like giving a wheel to cavemen whom have never used it. There is a learning curve.

They're fully capable of using precision airstrikes to minimize civilian casualties, which is how they launched this offensive. But they're not doing that anymore. Now they're simply shelling Palestinian territory, which is causing tons of collateral damage.

Doesn't mean I think we should bankroll their operations, they have pleeeeenty of money to do that on their own.

I wouldn't be so passionate about this issue if we didn't send them so much foreign aid and weaponry, and run interference for them on the UN Security Council. It makes us morally complicit in Israel's military actions, and it also generates a ton of blowback against us in the Muslim world.

 

[IrishLax]

So Israel wants the West Bank and Gaza. Great. Take it, and relocate the Palestinians so they don't have to live under enemy occupation, and Israel can maintain the security of its territory without killing women and children. The status quo is indefensible.

Agreed on every level.

 

[BobbyMac]

Here's my solution:

Egypt gives them a small little strip of the Sinai to attach to the Gaza Strip and then a Connecticut sized piece of land going east from Gaza towards the West Bank but not cutting Israel in half. That will be West Palestine.

Next: carve out a piece of Jordan where the Palestinians are native to... once again, about the size of Connecticut and call it East Palestine. Remember, Jordan is a made up country just like Israel so they have nothing to complain about.

 

[EddytoNow]

Spoken like a true American who's military possess weapons that were designed to minimize unwanted civilian casualties. You know, we are the only society to ever really pull this off in actual combat so be careful judging others and how they use force in military operations. This technology is like giving a wheel to cavemen whom have never used it. There is a learning curve.

But I agree, when you can, use restraint and be judicious in your application of force. I just have a hard time judging a people (cultural nation) that have lived through what they have for the past 3000 years. Wars, Diaspora and Holocaust. Their collective conscience is filled with angst, fear and... revenge. I admire their perseverance and willingness to survive. Doesn't mean I think we should bankroll their operations, they have pleeeeenty of money to do that on their own.

There are thousands of dead Iraqi and Afghani civilians who would beg to differ with your statement that we have military weapons that enable us to minimize civilian casualties. Our drone strikes and pin-point firing of missiles has resulted in the death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dead civilians. Every time we or the Israelis kill innocent civilians in order to kill a handful of terrorists, we create hundreds of new recruits for the terrorist organization. Netanyahu is responsible for thousands of new recruits destined to keep Hamas active for another generation.

 

[BobbyMac]

There are thousands of dead Iraqi and Afghani civilians who would beg to differ with your statement that we have military weapons that enable us to minimize civilian casualties. Our drone strikes and pin-point firing of missiles has resulted in the death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dead civilians. Every time we or the Israelis kill innocent civilians in order to kill a handful of terrorists, we create hundreds of new recruits for the terrorist organization. Netanyahu is responsible for thousands of new recruits destined to keep Hamas active for another generation.

STOP

"designed to" "pull it off" read those words.

What the hell do you think we COULD HAVE done to the civilian populations. I do not have a war fetish like many but i do recognize that our country has gone above and beyond when it is designing and implementing those weapons to be used in place of a wave of B-52's carpet bombing in old school fashion.

In regards to your other assertion... they will manufacture their terrorists with no future outside stimulus ever needed again. It is the struggle they seek and need, not a solution. We will never know peace in that region and once cheap middle oil is no longer needed, it will get REAL bad.

 

[Ndaccountant]

The money likely came from Israel's regional enemies, who use Hamas as a way to attack it by proxy. Hamas' benefactors have no interest in spending money to improve the plight of the Palestinians either, because the current state of affairs is useful for fostering anti-Israeli sentiment in the Arab world.

If the above is true, and reason leads us to believe that it is, then why would we ever believe peace is possible? If the Arab world has such disdain for Israel, why should anyone believe that any agreement would be worth anything?

 

[ulukinatme]

Maybe I'm biased having worked with people in Israel in my last line of work, as well as hearing stories from colleagues that traveled over there and saw what was going on first hand, but I side with the Israelis in most cases. There are times they may overstep their bounds, but often times an Israeli attack is a defensive retaliation after numerous Hamas attacks.

Like I've said from my OP, the way Israel operates is basically abhorrent. They give zero shits about civilians because they basically consider them combatants or "future" combatants.

True, but it's no wonder they feel the way they do...it's considered socially acceptable to combat Israelis or become a martyr for Palestine.
Stuff like this is sick, can't support people that put out this kind of propaganda for their children:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/eeii225G-HM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/57Q8K5TmivM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/XELcNMhkKCo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

You don't see this kind of propaganda on Israeli stations, at least not when my colleagues were over there. I've heard that this program has since been pulled from Palestine programming, but it's amazing this was just a few years ago. Oh yeah, Islam is a peaceful religion...Allah willing.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

If the above is true, and reason leads us to believe that it is, then why would we ever believe peace is possible? If the Arab world has such disdain for Israel, why should anyone believe that any agreement would be worth anything?

The Israeli-Palestinian peace process has been going on for over 40 years now. Lots of very smart and motivated people have believed that a lasting peace was not only possible, but in the best interests of both parties.

But if that was once true, it seems to no longer be the case. See the AmCon article linked above. Israel apparently wants to annex the West Bank and Gaza. They ought to just take it, and end the longest-running military occupation in modern history. Relocate the Palestinians elsewhere, since peaceful co-existence in such close proximity is apparently impossible.

 

[Ndaccountant]

The Israeli-Palestinian peace process has been going on for over 40 years now. Lots of very smart and motivated people have believed that a lasting peace was not only possible, but in the best interests of both parties.

But if that was once true, it seems to no longer be the case. See the AmCon article linked above. Israel apparently wants to annex the West Bank and Gaza. They ought to just take it, and end the longest-running military occupation in modern history. Relocate the Palestinians elsewhere, since peaceful co-existence in such close proximity is apparently impossible.

Maybe at one time that was true, but I am just skeptical of the idea that Israel will ever see peace given the radical groups in the Arab world. IMO, it would merely shift the battlefield.

 

[NDFan4Life]

NDTV Exclusive: How Hamas Assembles and Fires Rockets - NDTV

 

[ulukinatme]

NDTV Exclusive: How Hamas Assembles and Fires Rockets - NDTV

Man, I wish terrorist groups would build secret rocket launch sites next to MY house. I'm always complaining that nothing ever happens in my neighborhood. I'd love to be the target of a retaliatory attack. I mean, everyone wants to be a martyr, right?

I can't imagine any other reason they would launch rockets in this fashion other than to fuel their propaganda and try and recruit more of their people to their cause. What else do you stand to gain if you're firing from civilian zones and increasing the likelihood that a counter attack will be launched in that area? It certainly seems like they're either trying to provoke their own people, or use it as evidence of Israeli attacks against civilians.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I can't imagine any other reason they would launch rockets in this fashion other than to fuel their propaganda and try and recruit more of their people to their cause. What else do you stand to gain if you're firing from civilian zones and increasing the likelihood that a counter attack will be launched in that area? It certainly seems like they're either trying to provoke their own people, or use it as evidence of Israeli attacks against civilians.

They're pretty clearly trying to bait the IDF into racking up even more civilian casualties. And Israel seems happy to oblige them.

 

[enrico514]

.

 

[EddytoNow]

STOP

"designed to" "pull it off" read those words.

What the hell do you think we COULD HAVE done to the civilian populations. I do not have a war fetish like many but i do recognize that our country has gone above and beyond when it is designing and implementing those weapons to be used in place of a wave of B-52's carpet bombing in old school fashion.

In regards to your other assertion... they will manufacture their terrorists with no future outside stimulus ever needed again. It is the struggle they seek and need, not a solution. We will never know peace in that region and once cheap middle oil is no longer needed, it will get REAL bad.

Our weapons may be "designed to" "pull it off", and there is no question they cause less death than a wave of B-52 bombers dropping bombs indiscriminately. However, my point remains valid. These weapons are responsible for the deaths of thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. The fact that we could have blanketed Iraq and Afghanistan with bombers and killed millions does not justify the killing of hundreds of thousands.

In a similar manner, the fact that Israelis could have killed even more innocent civilians does not justify the killing that has taken place by their intentional targeting of civilian areas.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Our weapons may be "designed to" "pull it off", and there is no question they cause less death than a wave of B-52 bombers dropping bombs indiscriminately. However, my point remains valid. These weapons are responsible for the deaths of thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. The fact that we could have blanketed Iraq and Afghanistan with bombers and killed millions does not justify the killing of hundreds of thousands.

In a similar manner, the fact that Israelis could have killed even more innocent civilians does not justify the killing that has taken place by their intentional targeting of civilian areas.

Does Hamas not have some culpability here? They are firing from those civilian areas.

Now, with that said, I don't think Isreal can justify firing on three Hamas militants and hit a UN school as they did the other day. The risk there did not justify their actions. But the fact remains, Hamas is willfully putting their civilians at risk with no disregard for their lives. It is easy to blame Isreal for what they are doing, but where is the outcry for what Hamas is doing... and doing to their own people?

 

[Fbolt]

anything can be justified, marginalized, minimized, and rationalized

 

[connect the dots]

Does Hamas not have some culpability here? They are firing from those civilian areas.

Now, with that said, I don't think Isreal can justify firing on three Hamas militants and hit a UN school as they did the other day. The risk there did not justify their actions. But the fact remains, Hamas is willfully putting their civilians at risk with no disregard for their lives. It is easy to blame Isreal for what they are doing, but where is the outcry for what Hamas is doing... and doing to their own people?

When Harry Truman was President, there was much consternation in the State Department over recognizing Israel, and erasing Palestine, as a just created nation. George Marshall, as Truman's adviser and Secretary of State, cautioned his Commander in Chief with this admonition - if we give our approval of a Jewish state, created by European colonialists(Zionists), in the middle of the Muslim world, we, Harry, are going to start a fire that we will never be able to put out. As Whiskeyjack's posts have so eloquently pointed out, Hamas, in the scheme of things, is impotent and ineffectual. They can only put kindling wood on the fire, create anger, and perhaps, orchestrate another dramatic response like 9/11!

 

[T Town Tommy]

anything can be justified, marginalized, minimized, and rationalized

True. The good and the bad I guess.

IMO, Isreal wants Hamas gone. There will be no chance for peace as long as Hamas is in Gaza. Why? Hamas wants Isreal gone. All the talk and links to posts about how Hamas has done this or that to try to reach out for peace is empty and void. It's like they shake your hand and then reach around with the other to steal your wallet. Let's dig tunnels, blow up innocent civilians, kidnap Isreali citizens, build military command centers over hospitals, store rockets in schools and churches, shoot rockets off in the middle of civilian dwellings, and then wait for Isreal to shoot back and kill those civilians. Give me a break.

Isreal practically gave the Palestinian Authority everything they was asking for in 2008 but Abbas ended up declining the offer of Gaza and 93% of the West Bank. If that offer - while not perfect for everyone but was a show of just how much Isreal wanted lasting peace - was not accepted then what makes anyone think there is a chance for a lasting peace and a dual state existence? There is none. ANd the answer lies in the fact that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians only want one thing... Isreal gone.

Now with the apparent current cease fire and Isreal saying they are pretty much done what do we have? A cessation of hostilities for maybe one to two years before Hamas starts again. And the cycle will repeat itself over and over. And the US will once again defend the only true ally in the region. And they should. It may not be a perfect relationship but it is much better than dealing with Hamas.

 

[T Town Tommy]

When Harry Truman was President, there was much consternation in the State Department over recognizing Israel, and erasing Palestine, as a just created nation. George Marshall, as Truman's adviser and Secretary of State, cautioned his Commander in Chief with this admonition - if we give our approval of a Jewish state, created by European colonialists(Zionists), in the middle of the Muslim world, we, Harry, are going to start a fire that we will never be able to put out. As Whiskeyjack's posts have so eloquently pointed out, Hamas, in the scheme of things, is impotent and ineffectual. They can only put kindling wood on the fire, create anger, and perhaps, orchestrate another dramatic response like 9/11!

Isreal has as much claim, if not more to the land than any Muslim. Was Marshall correct? Yes. But sometimes the right thing to do isn't always the popular thing to do. The land has been fought for since dang near the dawn of time. And will be fought for till the end of time. I harken back to 2008 and the offer Isreal made. It was turned down largely in part to what you stated in your post. Wars are won and wars are lost. Isreal desires peace... the other side desires Isreal gone.

 

[connect the dots]

True. The good and the bad I guess.

IMO, Isreal wants Hamas gone. There will be no chance for peace as long as Hamas is in Gaza. Why? Hamas wants Isreal gone. All the talk and links to posts about how Hamas has done this or that to try to reach out for peace is empty and void. It's like they shake your hand and then reach around with the other to steal your wallet. Let's dig tunnels, blow up innocent civilians, kidnap Isreali citizens, build military command centers over hospitals, store rockets in schools and churches, shoot rockets off in the middle of civilian dwellings, and then wait for Isreal to shoot back and kill those civilians. Give me a break.

Isreal practically gave the Palestinian Authority everything they was asking for in 2008 but Abbas ended up declining the offer of Gaza and 93% of the West Bank. If that offer - while not perfect for everyone but was a show of just how much Isreal wanted lasting peace - was not accepted then what makes anyone think there is a chance for a lasting peace and a dual state existence? There is none. ANd the answer lies in the fact that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians only want one thing... Isreal gone.

Now with the apparent current cease fire and Isreal saying they are pretty much done what do we have? A cessation of hostilities for maybe one to two years before Hamas starts again. And the cycle will repeat itself over and over. And the US will once again defend the only true ally in the region. And they should. It may not be a perfect relationship but it is much better than dealing with Hamas.

Like Abba Eban, you would make an excellent Israeli propagandist. On second thought, perhaps the job should not be yours. You keep misspelling Israel!

 

[T Town Tommy]

Like Abba Eban, you would make an excellent Israeli propagandist. On second thought, perhaps the job should not be yours. You keep misspelling Israel!

Well, I never won any spelling bees. But, where in my post is propaganda?

 

[connect the dots]

Well, I never won any spelling bees. But, where in my post is propaganda?

It is not just this post. Like many Americans, it is your conditioned mind set. You actually believe the slogan line in the theme song from the movie Exodus - this land is mine, God gave this land to me. Or, how about this one - oh come, oh come, Emmanuel, and ransom captive Israel! The modern state of Israel was founded on lies, or on premises that cannot be sustained - that Israel is the Promised Land, and that the Jews are God's Chosen People.